Does Having A Low Channel Number Still Give You An Advantage?

[Gregg]

In analog TV days, having a low channel number was a big advantage. If you were between 2 and 13, it meant you were on the VHF band, which usually insured your signal was better than stations on UHF (14 and above).

Because the earliest stations usually took the lowest dial position they could find, the big networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) in most markets were low on the dial. That means you could switch easily betwen the big networks whether you had a remote control or had to get up and use the dial on the TV set.

If your market had only two commercial VHF channels, the network affiliate that had to settle for a spot on the UHF dial almost always got lower ratings for their newscasts and had trouble bidding for the better syndicated shows (Oprah, Regis, Wheel, Jeopardy, etc.).

Then Fox came to town and in some sizable markets was able to wrest VHF stations away from the bigger networks. One deal really hurt CBS, putting the CBS station on UHF in Atlanta, Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee. In some cases, even if you watched CBS on cable, you'd have to find the CBS station well apart from the ABC, NBC and Fox channels. Some cable operaters in the Detroit area, at least initially, put WWJ-TV on Cable Channel 62, same as its analog channel after Fox stole Channel 2 WJBK. That might make you decide to watch Leno instead of Letterman or Diane Sawyer instead of Katie Couric.

Now that the channel number a station uses is really fiction, do viewers still prefer single digit or low teens virtual channel stations? They're easier to remember, they're bunched together, they may have news departments that have been institutions in the market for decades, they still may have Oprah, Regis, Wheel, and Jeopardy.

Are you in a market where the CBS, ABC or NBC affiliate is on a virtual channel number above 13? Are their ratings for news and all day still lower than the other network stations, even though everyone is really broadcasting on a UHF channel? Do they offer as much news as stations with lower channel numbers? Do they run more infomercials and paid relgion to make up for lower ratings?


Gregg
[email protected]

 

[KML0224]

It's a toss-up in Hartford/New Haven. The market leader for many years here has been WFSB-TV (CBS) channel 3 of Hartford. Presently, they use channel 33 for their digital signal. WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven uses digital channel 10 for theirs. Regardless, WTNH-TV has almost always been in third place when it comes to Hartford County. They do much better in New Haven and in sections of out-of-market (but next door) Fairfield County. I receive the WTNH-TV signal here in southern Hartford County, but it's not as consistent as either WFSB or that of WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain, who uses digital channel 35 for their signal. To be fair, I have a problem with WFSB's digital once in a while, since my home hasn't always had good results from Avon Mountain. Also, I nearly always have a good signal of WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59 of New Haven, who uses channel 39 for their digital. I mention WCTX because they're the sister station of WTNH and they transmit from the same site as WTNH in Hamden, CT.

As for programming WFSB has always been helped by Oprah, which has been at 4 pm since it went national in 1986-87 (of course her best friend was an anchor here from 1981 to 1999, which helped considerably). Last season, WFSB took away Live! With Regis and Kelly from WTNH. WVIT usually does well with Ellen in the afternoons.

 

[gregg75]

I'm no tech expert, but speaking from experience and what I've seen on here, the lower channels
digital signals are not as "strong" as the higher channels. In Atlanta WXIA 11 recently moved
their weather sub to sister station WATL 36 because.........here's how Wikipedia explains it........

WATL's bandwidth is being used for mobile television (ATSC-M/H), including WXIA's mobile channels. Additionally, mobile communications work better on higher UHF TV channels than on low VHF ones.

 

[Sammi Brie]

I'm no tech expert, but speaking from experience and what I've seen on here, the lower channels
digital signals are not as "strong" as the higher channels. In Atlanta WXIA 11 recently moved
their weather sub to sister station WATL 36 because.........here's how Wikipedia explains it........

WATL's bandwidth is being used for mobile television (ATSC-M/H), including WXIA's mobile channels. Additionally, mobile communications work better on higher UHF TV channels than on low VHF ones.

Consider the antenna size needed for a UHF versus a VHF in that area. Wouldn't you want the smaller UHF antenna?

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Are you in a market where the CBS, ABC or NBC affiliate is on a virtual channel number above 13? Are their ratings for news and all day still lower than the other network stations, even though everyone is really broadcasting on a UHF channel?

You already mentioned Cleveland, where CBS traded strong VHF WJW/8 for UHF WOIO/19 in that affiliate swap. Fox ended up buying 8, though they sold it a while back to Local TV.

But 19 was a pretty strong Fox affiliate as "Fox Nineteen". It wasn't a WGPR by any stretch.

"CBS 19's" news ratings woes in 2011 - they are generally in fourth place - don't come from being on a UHF channel, or even a "virtual UHF" channel.

They come because the news operation is a tabloid mess in a market where people tend to gravitate towards What They Know, and the fact that 3/5/8 got a decades-long head start... 19 didn't have news at all until they switched to CBS, and that network mandated it...they cobbled together a quick news operation by expanding sister station WUAB/43's successful "10 O'Clock News" at first.

They later tried stuff like "Hometeam 19/43" and other branding before landing on today's "19 Action News" branding.

BTW, 19 is actually VHF now (RF 10), with a horrid signal most people outside Cleveland's near southern suburbs can't get with a court order. They've applied for a UHF RF 24 fill-in translator in Akron to fill out their southern signal area.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

One other point: I don't think it matters on cable here, at least.

19 is cable channel 4 (HD 1004) here on the TWC Cleveland-based system, and has similar low-channel placement on other cable systems here.

That puts it right between WKYC/3 (NBC, cable 3) and WEWS/5 (ABC, cable 5). WJW/8 (Fox) is also on cable 8.

 

[MattParker]

UHF started out at a disadvantage. It came late to the party in most markets. The FCC tried to make some medium and smaller markets all-UHF but caved on that (as on other things). Until the mid-60s, most TVs could not receive UHF. You needed an adapter, which you tuned separately. Most people had VHF antennas. You needed a new or additional antenna for good UHF reception most places. Even after the FCC required all-channel receivers, those sets still had separate tuners for UHF. You had one knob for 2-13 plus a position for UHF. Then you tuned a second knob to select a UHF station. On top of that, low-VHF stations usually got better reception than high-VHF stations, especially in fringe areas.

All that's changed. Digital tuners and remotes allow people to "surf" through the channels (and stop only at channels with signals or channels the user has selected). Most people get terrestrial TV via cable or satellite which have their own line-ups. Often local terrestrial channels are clustered together. And people know where the networks are - whatever their channel "branding." Any "advantage" a low channel number once offered has been minimized or eliminated.

 

[landtuna]

That might make you decide to watch Leno instead of Letterman or Diane Sawyer instead of Katie Couric.

That's a joke, right? Since virtually every larger TV has had a remote channel selector for the past 30 years it seems only the insignificant few couch potato's who had to dial manually would be in this description.

 

[cd637299]

If we are talking strictly cable, I don't think it's an issue anymore. It's all in the programming.

Now, if we're talking OTA, it could be a whole other ball o' wax. There are very very few OTA stations using channels 2-6 now, and those who *are*, at least 2 of them, are having signal issues. Many newer "HDTV" antennas (at least that's what they call 'em) stress the UHF part. Philly's 6 & San Antonio/Austin's 5 are signal-plagued.

In Miami, 7 & 10 (actually *using* RF 7 & 10) I think are right up there with the others here. Our virtual 39 doesn't even *say* 39 anymore, just "S-FL", as WLRN virtual 17 only has "WLRN" on screen. Seems that many TV stations today (originally UHF pre-transition) are weaning themselves off the name of the high channel number!

cd

 

[DToTheJ]

... (WOIO) 19 is actually VHF now (RF 10), with a horrid signal most people outside Cleveland's near southern suburbs can't get with a court order.

Wow, must be that bad. :

 

[landtuna]

BTW, 19 is actually VHF now (RF 10), with a horrid signal most people outside Cleveland's near southern suburbs can't get with a court order.

Phoenix has a similar problem with Fox's RF 10.

I'm aware of the issues with low VHF on digital but does it extend into the low high-VHF as well? RF 8 and 10 here are both prone to signal breakup but it almost never happens with RF 12.

 

[MarcB]

If you're talking about cable I tend to forget channels on very high numbers - particularly ones I may be interested in that are surrounded by ones I either don't subscribe to or ones I don't watch. That's why when a week and a half ago when Comcast put WTIC 61.2 - Antenna TV on Channel 376 I made it a favorite, so I don't forget about it way up there. 375 is one of the Starz Channels and I don't subscribe to Starz and 390something is Trinity Broadcasting Network which I don't watch.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Wow, must be that bad. :

Phoenix has a similar problem with Fox's RF 10.

I'm aware of the issues with low VHF on digital but does it extend into the low high-VHF as well? RF 8 and 10 here are both prone to signal breakup but it almost never happens with RF 12.

The biggest problem with WOIO's RF 10 is that it has a very low power output even now. The station started out at 3.5 kW, and went up to about 9 kW eventually. Meanwhile, some other VHFs got power increases to well above 30 kW.

Why can't WOIO do that? Well, it gets clobbered, especially when the atmospheric conditions are right, by co-channel CFPL/10 London Ontario...which barrels across Lake Erie, especially in the Summer.

CFPL was an easy catch for people along the lake, in nearby Cleveland suburbs like Lakewood (with rooftop antennas), for years, before WOIO-DT showed up. It even had cable carriage in parts of the area.

Whenever Canada and the London market goes mandatory digital, CFPL will stay on RF 10, so it's not going away.

Fox affiliate WJW/8 (RF 8 ) is almost as bad. They're at 11 kW right now, but don't get clobbered by a nearby Canadian station. Rumor has it they can't expand due to WLIO over in Lima, and they recently filed for a rulemaking to go back to RF 31 (where they had a STRONG signal pre-transition).

 

[landtuna]

That's why when a week and a half ago when Comcast put WTIC 61.2 - Antenna TV on Channel 376 I made it a favorite, so I don't forget about it way up there.

I don't know but would guess that most people have a favorites list. I did when I subscribed to sat and still do on OTA. I have customized my TV guide to match the favorites list so it doesn't matter what channel number the various stations use.

 

[RadioDaze]

Probably the biggest advantage of a low channel number now is psychological, as we tend to associate lower numbers, whether in channel numbers, rankings, etc.) as being among the best, though much of that, too, probably comes from those stations being the ones that are the older, more-established stations in town, not to mention UHF's technical woes that are well-detailed here and in other threads. Will the technical realities of digital turn this analog psychology on its head? It's hard to tell. Cable and satellite even the playing field quite a bit, but old habits die hard. Here in the hyphenated Raleigh-Durham market, its pretty common for those of the World War II generation to refer to the three established VHF channels -WRAL-TV 5 (CBS) in Raleigh, WTVD-11 (ABC) in Durham and public broadcaster WUNC-TV 4 in Chapel Hill not by their (analog) channel number, but by their city of license ("Turn on Raleigh or Durham to see what the weather will be like tomorrow").

 

[landtuna]

How many TV viewers today remember the "UHF issues" of the 50's and 60's?

 

[cd637299]

How many TV viewers today remember the "UHF issues" of the 50's and 60's?

I was born in 1959 and cannot totally relate---however in Miami, the second & third TV stations were UHF, 17 & 23. They had network affiliations----but once 7 (NBC) and 10 (ABC) came on, it was curtains for both stations. Both signed off in 1957 or so, and remained off for years. 17 returned in 1963 as an educational (semi NET), and 23 in 1967 was an indie.

I have looked at microfiches of the Miami Herald at our library. In early 50s there were ads for "UHF conversions," not cheap either, as I recall! I believe that this was similar to a TV repairman coming to the house to set things up. You know that "all-channel" TVs were not mandatory to be manufactured until 1964.

cd

 

[ssetta]

I've actually noticed that a lot of major network stations (or even minor) in the UHF channel range don't even use their channel number as an identity. For instance, the Fox affiliate in Providence, which is WNAC-TV channel 64 (virtual channel 12) is simply known as "Fox Providence." I think the Fox affiliate in Philly is like that, too. And I'm pretty sure WWJ is simply known as "CBS Detroit." I also know that in some areas, some stations actually identify themselves as their cable channel numbers. I think WCNC (36) in Charlotte is known as NBC 6, because that's the channel number that most cable systems carry it on. I think it's also true with KNSD in San Diego. Any others like this?

 

[bpatrick]

Probably the biggest advantage of a low channel number now is psychological, as we tend to associate lower numbers, whether in channel numbers, rankings, etc.) as being among the best, though much of that, too, probably comes from those stations being the ones that are the older, more-established stations in town, not to mention UHF's technical woes that are well-detailed here and in other threads. Will the technical realities of digital turn this analog psychology on its head? It's hard to tell. Cable and satellite even the playing field quite a bit, but old habits die hard. Here in the hyphenated Raleigh-Durham market, its pretty common for those of the World War II generation to refer to the three established VHF channels -WRAL-TV 5 (CBS) in Raleigh, WTVD-11 (ABC) in Durham and public broadcaster WUNC-TV 4 in Chapel Hill not by their (analog) channel number, but by their city of license ("Turn on Raleigh or Durham to see what the weather will be like tomorrow").

That last part is certainly true; when I was a kid WRAL was always "Raleigh" and WTVD was "Durham". I agree, too, that there is a psychological element; most people (myself included) probably haven't bothered to learn what digital channels their favorite stations are on, and the stations tend to identify by their virtual (former analog) channel; we have WFMY News 2, Fox 8, ABC 11, NBC 17, CW 22, Fox 50, you get the idea (WRAL identifies by call letters). And I don't think it matters one iota if WFMY is on digital 51; people still refer to it as Channel 2. IMO, it's having a low virtual number that counts, especially if you have cable or satellite...unless you're high-tech savvy like a lot of teenagers I know.

 

[cd637299]

I've actually noticed that a lot of major network stations (or even minor) in the UHF channel range don't even use their channel number as an identity. For instance, the Fox affiliate in Providence, which is WNAC-TV channel 64 (virtual channel 12) is simply known as "Fox Providence." I think the Fox affiliate in Philly is like that, too. And I'm pretty sure WWJ is simply known as "CBS Detroit." I also know that in some areas, some stations actually identify themselves as their cable channel numbers. I think WCNC (36) in Charlotte is known as NBC 6, because that's the channel number that most cable systems carry it on. I think it's also true with KNSD in San Diego. Any others like this?

The Ft Myers/Naples FL market is almost all known-by-cable-channel-number OTA TV stations! What makes it totally bizarre is the "triple identity" of many stations. Example: WBBH is virtual ch 20 and DT15, but ID's as NBC 2 !! There will be a test on this later, kids.

cd